> > As it happens I agree with Ian on this. Duplication of information
> > is not bad at all. Ian focused on the advantages of preservation
> > when duplicate repositories were in place. Obviously the example he
> > gave fits that circumstance. I'm not sure its equally valid for the
> > web, since backup's, at least for large sites, are usually broadly
> > distributed geographically, and a disaster is unlikely to destroy
> > all the backups. Nonetheless, I can point to archives that have had
> > only a single backup, and that backup was lost. Happened in a
> > specific intance with a major genealogy provider.
> >
> > Q
>
> What really concerns me is what would be the consequence of there
> being a single archive and the central provider decided to move out
> of the market. In the long term survival of records depends not
> just on multiple copies under the same management but copies under
> different management.
> Ian Goddard <goddai01@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
As someone who has had to manually recover many years worth of
emails from a heavily trafficked mail list, because RootsWeb decided
the list wasn't supposed to have archives if it was a private list,
I can easily see that point. Anything can be turned into free
electrons, but if there are multiple systems containing the same
material, there's an improved chance at preserving the data in an
accessible format.
So, the answer is: there are a good many reasons why duplication on
the web is a good thing. Those who don't like or appreciate that
duplication are primarily having a problem with the way the web
works. If it's a problem (I think it isn't) it's not one that is
obviously remediable.
Q
Q <quolla6@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
|
